My first response to you was to clear up your confusion regarding a statement from someone else. You were confused as to someone elses use of the term "in the system" which I clarified for you. You don't have to reiterate anything to me.

In my second response I answered the points you raise in your question, since you felt the need to nitpick something I didn't say.

"I'm already well aware"

Seems contrary to

"I assume"

In your question. Being "well aware" one wouldn't have to make assumptions.

Your hostility in "You're telling me this why?" is what prompted my nitpicking. God forbid I respond to your clarification with further clarification. My question hadn't (and still hasn't) really been answered yet, so I was reiterating the fact that it is indeed the client running the script. It was an attempt to acknowledge your answer and effectively say, "okay, I understand and here's why".

If we want to nitpick, though, "I'm already well aware" is referring to being well aware that I need libraries to run this script. "I assume" is referring to assuming that I am running into this issue because Oracle isn't installed on the client. They aren't contrary to each other because they're statements about separate topics.

There was no hostility in my writing, you read that into it yourself. You reiterated for no reason, and now again in this post you throw the term "client" into the mix. Which client, the Oracle client, the person who pays you to write software? You're confused by someones use of terminology ("system") without context yet you repeatedly do the same. For the record I know what you're trying to say (no need to reiterate, again), you're just not saying it very well. To some extent I know what I mean. Why don't you? (and How do I post a question effectively?) would be worth reading.

'It was an attempt to acknowledge your answer and effectively say, "okay, I understand and here's why".'

So you can explain it sensibly now but not then?

'"I'm already well aware" is referring to being well aware that I need libraries to run this script. "I assume" is referring to assuming that I am running into this issue because Oracle isn't installed on the client.'

if you are "well aware that I need libraries to run this script" you also know that running the same script else where will require these libraries, so "assuming that I am running into this issue because Oracle isn't installed on the client". This is exactly the same thing. My statement was that if you're "well aware" you wouldn't be making assumptions.

Consider packaging your script and all it's dependencies before deploying to the client. pp. Again, some thought (and reading of How do I post a question effectively?) would probably have lead to a better initial question, something along the lines of:

"I have a script which uses DBD::Oracle to connect to a database and do some work, how can I deploy this on clients without having to install X,Y,Z on each target machine?"

Since mimicking an Oracle client installation won't make something which relies on an actual Oracle client work.

So what you're saying is that I misunderstood the context of your question? I know there can be hostility baked into a response like yours. You say that isn't the case however. Of course, you knew what you mean, so why didn't I?

"Which client, the Oracle client, the person who pays you to write software?"

The client I've referenced in my posts has always been the client that I defined in my initial post: "...a client to connect to an Oracle database separate from the client."

...

Anyhoo, thank you for answering my question. I think my solution is going to be to install Perl on the server, and run the scripts over there since I can't install Oracle on the client side. There's a limited version of Perl installed right now, and it doesn't include all of the base modules, but it's easier, given my limitations, to do that instead of installing Oracle on the client. Licensing is the entire reason I'm in this predicament in the first place, so I'd like to avoid problems with it. :-P

Ada Lovelace for the palindrome
Albert Einstein for having smelly feet
Alfred Nobel for his contribution to battlefield science
Burkhard Heim for providing the missing link between science and mysticism
Claude Shannnon for riding a unicycle at night at MIT
Donald Knuth for being such a great organist
Edward Teller for being the template for Dr. Strangelove
Edwin Hubble for pretending to be a pipe-smoking English gentleman
Erwin Schrödinger for cruelty to cats
Hedy Lamarr for weaponizing pianos
Hugh Everett for immortality, especially for cats
Isaac Newton for his occult studies
Kikunae Ikeda for discovering the secrets of soy sauce
Larry Wall for his website
Louis Camille Maillard for discovering why steaks taste good
Marie Curie for the shiny stuff
Nikola Tesla for the cool cars
Paul Dirac for speaking one word per hour when socializing
Richard Feynman for his bongo skills
Robert Oppenheimer for his in-depth knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita
Rusi P Taleyarkhan for Cold Fusion
Sigmund Freud for his Ménage ā trois
Theodor W Adorno for his contribution to the reception of jazz
Wilhelm Röntgen for the foundations of body scanners
Yulii Borisovich Khariton for the Tsar Bomba
Other (please explain why)